16486Re: John Frame and Images
- Aug 10, 2008Hi Larry,
I am glad you reject John Frame's positions, and that you reject them
on biblical grounds. But do you not see a contradiction in saying that
Frame is wrong biblically on the one hand and 'Frame does fall within
reasonable expectations of Scripture interpretation'on the other? How
is getting the Second Commandment wrong (as you admit Frame
does)compatible with falling 'within reasonable expectations of
Surely it is not 'reasonable' in God's eyes to reject the truth of the
Commandment, by adopting the Roman Catholic position?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Larry Bray"
> I tried to reply to the last post by Bob but yahoo was having
> problems, so i'm posting it as a new thread.
> The issue of the bronze serpent has nothing to do with whether or not
> God commanded something to be done. Rather, it has to do with the fact
> that it can't be considered idolatry because God commanded it. God
> would not command Israel to commit idolatry.
> The issue of images of Jesus for certain purposes outside of worship
> has nothing to do with the RPW since it is outside of worship that
> they are used.
> This simply shows that Frame does fall within reasonable expectations
> of Scripture interpretation. Some of the main reasons i think he's
> The command in Ex 20 against idolatry has within it 2 distinct
> prohibitions regarding idols - don't make them(have them), don't
> worship them. Frame looks at the distinction of the 2nd prohibition as
> being a clarification of the 1st part rather than distinct from it.
> The apostles were the only ones that could create an image of Jesus
> since they saw what He looked like...and they didn't. This shows that
> there was no break in OT/NT teachings regarding idolatry.
> If there was a shift from not making to making images it would have
> been mentioned in the NT as the history of the Church prior to the NT
> shows a non-negotiable prohibition on images of God.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>